THE NY SUN TODAY CONFIRMED that it was Prime Minister Maliki's plan to specifically endorse Obama's withdrawal plan. And it was far more calculated than has been revealed:
The matter was taken up at a meeting of Iraq's National Security Council on Thursday on the recommendation of Mr. Maliki, who had been advised by the Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi to express public support for the Obama withdrawal plan. Asked for a comment yesterday, Mr. Chalabi, an old hand at working the American political process to the advantage of Iraq, conveyed a statement via his Washington representative, Francis Brooke: "This is an honor I will not claim and a rumor I will not deny."
And though the maneuvering of the neocon's BFF Ahmad Chalabi could fill a diary on its own, I leave that to others, and turn to the little-noticed background behind Maliki's endorsement...
THE CORPORATE-OWNED MEDIA is notorious for its short attention span, focusing on each day's events as if they were singular. But the endorsement by Maliki did not occur in a vacuum and is fact just one more step in a long dance with Bushco that Maliki has been tapping his way through for years.
FLASHBACK: MARCH 2007
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fears the Americans will torpedo his government if parliament does not pass a law to fairly divvy up the country's oil wealth among Iraqis by the end of June, close associates of the leader told The Associated Press on Tuesday.
Oil. It was the reason Bushco wanted in and its control has been the overarching issue ever since:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." -- Alan Greenspan, September, 2007
"Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that." -- Gen. John Abizaid, former Commander of the United States Central Command, October, 2007
Oil. Iraq has the world's third-largest proven oil reserves. From 200 to 300 billion barrels of light crude worth as much as $45 trillion.
BuschCo wanted those trillions in oil companies' hands. The problem here, though, was that Iraq's oil was an Iraqi national resource. BushCo's solution, reported by the LA Times...
The U.S. State Department's Oil and Energy Working Group, meeting between December 2002 and April 2003, also said that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war." Its preferred method of privatization was a form of oil contract called a production-sharing agreement. These agreements are preferred by the oil industry but rejected by all the top oil producers in the Middle East because they grant greater control and more profits to the companies than the governments. The Heritage Foundation also released a report in March 2003 calling for the full privatization of Iraq's oil sector.
SO BUSHCO WENT TO WORK furiously seeking a new 'oil law' to place those trillions in oil company hands. And though Mr. Maliki kept his personal opinion close to his vest, one of his most important supporters was 'anti-American firebrand' Moqtada al Sadr, who coincidentally was one of the most powerful opponents of American occupation and any new 'oil law'.
And somewhere in the recesses of BushCo came the thought that it would be a dandy idea that the legally appointed Prime Minister Maliki be replaced, and al Sadr removed from the conversation:
FLASHBACK: DECEMBER 2006
Following discussions with the Bush administration, several of Iraq’s major political parties are in talks to form a coalition whose aim is to break the powerful influence of the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr within the government, senior Iraqi officials say...
The Americans, frustrated with Mr. Maliki’s political dependence on Mr. Sadr, appear to be working hard to help build the new coalition. President Bush met last week in the White House with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Iranian-backed Shiite party, and is meeting this week with Tariq al-Hashemi, leader of the Sunni Arab party...
Mr. Hakim’s and Mr. Hashemi’s White House visits are directly related to their effort to form a new alliance, a senior Iraqi official said.
The White House, of course, denied any such plan to replace Maliki. But Maliki let be known his reaction:
FLASHBACK: DECEMBER 2006
They said al-Maliki was livid at the attempt to unseat him.
"We know what's going on and we will sabotage it," said a close al-Maliki aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivities involved. He did not elaborate.
Three weeks later, Maliki quashed BushCo's plan to replace him, with the aid of Grand Ayatollah Sistani:
FLASHBACK: DECEMBER 2006
One of Iraq's most influential Shiite clerics rejected a U.S.-backed proposal to isolate Shiite extremists in the national government, saying the country should govern itself with the help of anti-U.S. firebrand Muqtada Sadr, according to politicians who spoke with the cleric Saturday.
Shiite politicians met with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in this Shiite holy city, and then said they had thrown their support behind Sadr, who demands a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq rather than the temporary increase under consideration in Washington.
"The Sadr movement is part of Iraqi affairs," said Haider Abadi, a leader of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party. "We won't allow others to interfere to weaken any Iraqi political movement."...
Abadi said al-Sistani maintains Iraqis know how best to govern their emerging state.
Abadi said the cleric told him, "Iraqis must get their sovereignty as soon as possible. No Iraqis want foreign troops on his land for a long period. Therefore, the government should be strengthened."
BUSHCO'S COUP HAD FAILED, and it was left to deal with Maliki. So over the coming months they ratcheted up the pressure. By June of 2007, BuschCo was getting desperate, and Maliki was on the receiving end of high-power pressure over the 'oil law':
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates arrived in Baghdad on Friday to assess a U.S. troop buildup and press Iraq's government to move faster in passing laws that Washington views as critical to reconciling Iraqis....
Gates is the third senior U.S. official to visit Baghdad this week, following in the footsteps of the top U.S. military general in the Middle East, Admiral William Fallon, and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte.
He is expected to echo their messages to Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders -- speed up passage through parliament of legislation that includes a law on distributing oil revenues and holding provincial elections.
So what was so important about this law?
FLASHBACK: MARCH 2007
Until about 35 years ago, the world’s oil was largely in the hands of seven corporations based in the United States and Europe. Those seven have since merged into four: ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP. They are among the world’s largest and most powerful financial empires. But ever since they lost their exclusive control of the oil to the governments, the companies have been trying to get it back...
A new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament this month would, if passed, go a long way toward helping the oil companies achieve their goal. The Iraq hydrocarbon law would take the majority of Iraq’s oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to international oil companies for a generation or more...
It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty...
The administration has highlighted the law’s revenue sharing plan, under which the central government would distribute oil revenues throughout the nation on a per capita basis. But the benefits of this excellent proposal are radically undercut by the law’s many other provisions — these allow much (if not most) of Iraq’s oil revenues to flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil companies...
The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers or share new technologies. They could even ride out Iraq’s current "instability" by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country. The vast majority of Iraq’s oil would then be left underground for at least two years rather than being used for the country’s economic development.
And with stakes so high, there was another reason for BushCo's panic: the UN mandate was running out.
THE LEGALITY OF THE UNITED STATES OCCUPATION of Iraq has been dependent on a mandate from the United Nations. A little noticed provision of that mandate concerns the handling of Iraq's oil:
The Security Council has always paired the annual renewal of its mandate for the multinational force with the renewal of a second mandate for the management of Iraqi oil revenues. This happens through the "Development Fund for Iraq," a kind of escrow account set up by the occupying powers after the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime and recognized in 2003 by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483. The oil game will be up if and when Iraq announces that this mandate, too, will be terminated at a date certain in favor of resource-development agreements that -- like the envisioned security agreement -- match those of other states in the region.
And in December, 2007, the last year of the U.N. mandate for occupation -- and control of Iraq's oil reserves -- was passed. The deadline for any new request was June 15, 2008. By December 31, 2008, the mandate will expire and control of Iraq's oil will lie exclusively with the Iraqis.
CUT TO RECENT EVENTS. The 'oil law' -- at least in terms of BushCo's desires -- is dead. The Kurds have already signed separate development deals for their territory. BushCo attempted to gain a toe-hold for the oil companies. But even that fell by the wayside:
"We did not finalize any agreement with them because they refused to offer consultancy based on fees, as they wanted a share of the oil," Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani told a press briefing in Baghdad Monday. "It’s a service contract and not a production-sharing contract," he added. "We think there is no need to share Iraq’s oil with anybody."
So what does all this have to do with Maliki's endorsement of Obama's plan?
A lot.
THERE IS AN ARAB PROVERB that goes, "A chameleon does not leave one tree until he is sure of another."
Nouri al-Maliki has been that chameleon since April 22, 2006, when he was nominated to be Prime Minister. He has been the consummate politician, maneuvering against tremendous odds through the sharp-sharded looking glass of Iraqi politics while at the same time protecting Iraq's oil reserves even as he convinced the Americans that he was playing the American's game.
Until this year when, with the 'oil law' dead and having firmly rejected any renewal of the U.N. mandate, the chameleon found his new tree.
July 3, 2008:
Declaring that there will not be "another colonization of Iraq," Iraq’s foreign minister raised the possibility on Wednesday that a full security agreement with the United States might not be reached this year, and that if one was, it would be a short-term pact.
American officials, speaking anonymously because of the delicate state of negotiations, said they were no longer optimistic that a complete security agreement could be reached by the year’s end.
July 8, 2008:
Iraq said for the first time yesterday that it wanted to set a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from its territory.
President Bush has long resisted a schedule for pulling his 145,000 soldiers out, arguing that it would play into the hands of insurgents. Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia Prime Minister, who boasted last week that he had crushed terrorism in the country, suggested that it was time to start setting time-lines.
July 15, 2008:
THE PRESIDENT: Okay.
Q `You never mention oil companies. Are you confident that American oil producers are tapping all of the sources they have out there, including offshore? And on Iraq, will you sign an interim agreement with Prime Minister Maliki on American operations in Iraq, leaving it to your successor to do a more permanent agreement?
THE PRESIDENT: There are -- let me start with Iraq. We're in the process of working on a strategic framework agreement with the Iraqi government that will talk about cooperation on a variety of fronts -- diplomacy, economics, justice. Part of that agreement is a security agreement, and I believe that -- you know, they want to have an aspirational goal as to how quickly the transition to what we have called overwatch takes place.
PERHAPS IT WAS JUST coincidental timing. But two days after Bush labeled Maliki's insistence on a timetable an 'aspirational goal', Maliki consulted with the Iraq National Security Council, and at Chalabi's urging:
July 19, 2008:
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.
In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.
"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
THERE IS AN ANOTHER ARAB PROVERB that goes, "The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on."
And the barking of the BushCo dogs recedes, the progress of the Iraqi caravan is now firmly in Iraq's control. It was that message that Maliki not only endorsed through Obama's plan, but insisted upon:
Mr. Zebari said that on his recent trip to the United States, in addition to President Bush, he had met with the presumptive presidential nominees, Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, and Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat.
He said that Mr. Obama had asked him: " ‘Why is the Iraqi government in a rush, in a hurry? This administration has only a few more months in office.’ "
Mr. Zebari said he told Mr. Obama that even a Democratic administration would be better off having something "concrete in front of them to take a hard look at."
And that 'concrete' thing ' in front of them' is that it's time for Americans to go, and leave decisions on Iraq's oil to the Iraqis -- and that Obama's timetable will do just fine, thank you.